The Limits of Religious Belief

The Navajo objection is not stopping anything Ars TechnicaAs I understand US law, it is expected that reasonable accommodations to religious beliefs will be made. In general employers cannot expect Jews to work on Saturday, and should allow Muslims time for prayer - and so on. Even then, there are exceptions.But this is not yet a legal matter. It’s simply a question of social pressure (and to be honest, there isn’t a pressing reason to send human ashes to the moon, and if it were done at scale it would be a waste of resources).Abortion laws are a bit of a different matter. It’s very hard to prove that the motivation is religious rather than secular (even if it often is). We can only hope that the increasing harshness and cruelty of the anti-abortion movement inspires a political backlash which will sweep the responsible legislators from office.

If you think that religion is the only reason for banning murder, rape, or theft you are a dangerous lunatic. The more so since you obviously don’t value being honest.

quote:

---

Never said it was the ONLY reason. Just hinting it is a major, contributing one.

---

It isn’t. ( Indeed, in the case of Crestionists and ID supporters religion seems to promote dishonesty. Perhaps you would like to explain that?)​

quote:

---

So my question for you all is: What is the basis of your supposed religion-less morality?

---

Are you changing the subject? Law is not the same as morality. Surely you know that much.

quote:

---

Of course it does. You're being naive if you think otherwise

---

I’d say it is naive to think that religion is a major factor in any of them.Oh, and you can start with your dishonesty here Message 149There are plenty of other examples of dishonesty in ID - which works would you like to discuss?

quote:

---

What are you talking about? I didnt mention law.

---

Obviously the law is the main way that religious beliefs get enforced on others. Obviously the abortion issue is primarily about law. If you wish to decree that the primary topic of the thread doesn’t exist just because you didn’t explicitly mention it then you are an even bigger egotist than I thought.

quote:

---

If 60% of the voters of a State do not want abortion to be preformed in their State why should 40% of that State demand that the 60% have to bend to their wishes and wants?

---

Wouldn’t it be more accurately phrased as “why shouldn’t the 40% have to bend to the wishes and wants of the 60%”? The 60% would not be required to have or to perform abortions.You will also find that when the States have referenda on the issue the vote usually goes in favour of permitting abortions.From November 2022: The Conversation

It’s because he assumes that accretion is the only process that deposits material anywhere on Earth. Apparently it’s OK for ICANT to pass his assumptions off as facts.

quote:

---

There you go making assumptions about what I believe. If you want to know what I believe just ask me.
​
I believe floods can make changes to the landscape. But not to the extent YEC's do. Maybe you think they could. I do not make any assumption to that affect.

---

If you believe that deposition can occur by other means why do you insist that the burial of the material that became oil must be due to accretion?

quote:

---

So I will ask, do you think floods can make the changes YEC's put forth.

---

I don’t believe that individual floods can, but I do accept the standard geological explanations for the existence of sedimentary rock - which does include flooding. Why don’t you?

quote:

---

But not one of them can add volume to the earths surface. Volume has to be added from an outside source unless it can be manufactured.

---

Adding volume to the Earth is not the issue. The issue is the burial of the material that became oil. You insist that it must be due to accretion. Why?

quote:

---

But where did the material in those deposition come from?

---

If you don’t know and can’t be bothered to find out then you are assuming that it came from space. It didn’t. Most of it is formed by the erosion of existing rocks.

quote:

---

But I do believe in sedimentary rocks and dirt, but that it took over billions of years if not trillions of years maybe even quadrillions of years to take place.

---

The question was why you reject the explanations from the science of geology. Obviously you do, but you don’t give any reason.

quote:

---

According to your religion it might not matter to you. But to me it matters as I want to know how things happen, and maybe why.

---

Obviously that is completely false. Assuming that the burial is due to an increase in volume is begging the question. And you do that because you don’t want to understand how it works. You want to stick to your ignorant and false assumptions instead.

quote:

---

My beliefs are based on the assumption that God exists which I also believe is a fact as the evidence I can examine says He does exist. Yet my views are forced out of the schools by your beliefs, by our government.

---

Your assumption that the depth of oil fields must be explained by accretion is NOT based on the assumption that God exists. It is based on the assumption that your ignorant opinions can’t be wrong. Even when they are.

quote:

---

But you say no I don't have a religion. Sure you do because you believe supernatural events have occurred. You believe the universe began to exist with no source for any energy or materials yet it was contained in a pin point.

---

Even if I did believe that supernatural events had occurred it wouldn’t make my beliefs a religion. That you call natural events supernatural just makes it a bigger joke.